Neoport
Author:Myles Baldridge
Co-Authors: Lindsay Taguma and Rita Gray
PSY 409a, Fall 2008, Generation 28
Dr. Leon James, Instructor, University
of Hawaii
Exploration of Neologism
Development in Society
Several questions come to mind when thinking about the
formation of Neologisms. Why do Neos
exist? Who has the ability to create new
words? What makes them important? Who pays attention? When does a Neo become
just another common word? In this section we will attempt to answers these very
questions and hopefully put things into perspective.
Team NeoChart Analysis
By Myles Baldridge
|
# |
Prediction |
Phrase |
Karli |
Shona |
Ashley |
|
1 |
2 |
Culture Tantrum (road rage) |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
2 |
Come out swinging positive |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|
3 |
3 |
Emotional use of the gas pedal |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
4 |
2 |
driving into
regression |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
5 |
3 |
Irresistibly drawn into the duel |
3 |
1 |
1 |
|
6 |
1 |
hybrid cars come
standard with smug |
1 |
3 |
3 |
|
7 |
3 |
Passenger friendly |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
8 |
1 |
Metal sharks in a
parking frenzy |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
9 |
3 |
Inner power tools for smart driving |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
10 |
3 |
Objective self-assessment for drivers |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
11 |
2 |
In highway warfare there
are no victors |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
12 |
1 |
Hell exists only on a
hot day in highway gridlock in a car with no air conditioning |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
13 |
2 |
Facing the culture of disrespect |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
14 |
3 |
roadway bumper cars |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
15 |
3 |
Winning and losing the driving game |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
16 |
1 |
Buried alive in a gas
powered casket in a rush hour cemetery |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
17 |
3 |
steering with empathy |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
18 |
3 |
Private world of the driver |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
19 |
1 |
A highway off-ramp is
a sanctuary for sanity |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
20 |
1 |
Clearly the Buddha
never owned an automobile |
1 |
1 |
3 |
After
selecting 10 neos from the Master Neochart and constructing 10 additional neos of
our own, our team set out to have these 20 neos evaluated for originality. Each
neo was to be rated on a scale of 1 to 3 with 1 being 80% original, 2 being 50%
original, and 3 being 30% original. Prior to the evaluations we made
predictions for how each rater would respond to each neo, or rate the intensity
of their “neoness” Each team member selected a friend who was willing to rate
each neo and provide additional feedback as to why they gave the scores they
did. Each evaluator was given a table of neos similar to the one seen above but
with the left column of predictions hidden so as not to influence their score
in any way. In addition only one rating column was available, so that the
ratings of other participants could not influence their decisions and thus
confound the experiment. The results of these evaluations are posted above.
After the each team member had scores and
feedback for each of the 20 neos from participants of their choosing, we met to
compare our data. Prior to the evaluations I had hypothesized that the ratings
of our participants would be similar if not directly reflect the predictions we
had made earlier. Clearly I was wrong, as the data represented in the ratings
above is inconsistent not only with the predictions but also in the scores
given by each participant with each other. This led us to consider just what
are the factors responsible for these inconsistencies. To answer this query we looked at the
feedback provided by our participants.
Rater Feedback
Rita
selected her friend Shona Scott to participant in the survey. Overall Shona’s
ratings were 45% consistent with our predications, or, 9 out of 20 of her
ratings were equal to our predictions. Additionally on 3 neos she responded
with an opposite rating. In other words on 3 neos that had a prediction of
either 1 or 3 she responded with an opposite score of 1 or 3. Shona provided
feedback on several neos. For Culture Tantrum, a neo which she rated a
1, or 80% likely a neo, she said that she has “never heard of this before.” For
Coming Out Swinging she said, “50/50 but sounds original.” On Irresistibly
Drawn Into The Duel she responds, “these words would not normally be
paired.” She responded favorably to the neos Metal Shark in a Parking Frenzy
and Buried Alive in a Gas Powered Casket in a Rush Hour Cemetery by
commenting “[it is an] original and interesting metaphor. She responded less favorably however to the
neo A Highway Off-Ramp is a Sanctuary for Sanity by saying it was
“strange.”
Lindsay’s
rater was her friend Ashley O’Neal. Ashley responded consistently with our
predictions 15% of the time, or 3 out of 20 neos. However her ratings were
significant in that she gave opposite ratings 60% of the time, or 12 out of 20
neos. That means that for 12 neos with a prediction of 1 or 3 she responded
with an opposite rating of 1 or 3. Lindsay reported that Ashley was
apprehensive about attributing a neo with 100% originality because she
recognized that “it is likely that the neos might show up in people’s blogs or
MySpace pages.” However after being informed that each neo was Googled in
quotes with zero returns she concedes that because the Google network is so
vast “it is improbable that someone said the exact thing.” Our group deduced
upon reviewing the data from her ratings that her approach to the evaluations
was very absolute, in that she always rated with a 1 or a 3. It is possible
that she interpreted the neos by concluding that either they were very unique
or not unique, but never with somewhat unique.
As
my rater I selected my younger sister Karli to evaluate the neos. I selected
her not only for her willingness to participate but also because she spends
more time on YouTube than anyone I know. This hobby/addiction of hers gives her
a unique and broad understanding of popular culture, which might allow for
detection of unoriginal neos. The results were mixed. She gave a 1 30% of the
time, a 2 30% of the time, and a 3 40% of the time. While she awarded a 1 6
times she also mentioned that she would not have given them if the criteria for
a 1 was 100% certainty of originality, citing that “even though Google is
capable of reaching millions of websites, they’re still only websites, and
don’t account for other resources like books and television.” We agreed that
Internet webpages account for only a slice of media. Upon reading Passenger
Friendly, she felt that perhaps it was something she might hear from a car
salesman. She liked Clearly the Buddha Never Owned an Automobile but
thought it sounded familiar, like maybe she had heard it before in some
stand-up comedy routine or in some religious critique magazine. (She still
awarded it a 1 however) She admitted that while she didn’t know what the word
“regression” meant, she thought Driving Into Regression sounded academic
and that it may have been abstracted from some textbook. Private World of
the Driver resonated with her and her own experiences as a driver but
didn’t think it exceptionally original. Steering with Empathy sounded to
her like something you might hear at a court mandated driving class. Finally
she concluded that Metal Sharks in a Parking Frenzy was the most unique
and her personal favorite because it reminded her of the insanity of the
holiday shopping season.
Evaluating the Data
Charts
To
further understand the underlying meaning of our Team NeoChart we constructed
two graphs to represent the data in different ways so as to abstract a pattern.
All of the data represented in the charts reflects the same data present in our
Team NeoChart. No new information was added. Our hope was that reformatting the
data would give us some insight into the reasoning behind the participants’
ratings as well as find some commonality between their choices, which might
lend certainty of originality to our neos.
This
first graph titled “Ratings versus Neos” is designed to compare the ratings of
each participant with each of our neos from the Team NeoChart. In addition we
can see how each participant scored in relation to our prediction for a
particular neo. Each neo is represented on the x-axis by a number corresponding
to its location on the Team NeoChart. For each interval, or neo, on the x-axis
there are 4 rising bars, each representing either the prediction score or one
score from each of our 3 raters. Now the purpose of this graph is best served
when attempting to ascertain how original or unoriginal each neo was to each
rater as well as their originality in relation to each other. This particular
survey has a limited pool of participants and thus is an equally limiting
method of certifying the originality of the statements. While arguably it is
impossible to verify the originality of any statement with 100 percent
certainty, it is even less possible to do with data from 3 different people
with very different perspectives. As such it might be sufficient for the
purposes of this exercise to set a criteria for originality where a given neo
is deemed more original with 2 or more scores of 1, and conversely deemed less
original if awarded 2 or more scores of 3. As you can see from our graph there
isn’t a single neo with a solid score of 1 or 3 from all three participants.
However we can see that neos 1,5,8,12,16,19, and 20 have each received 2 scores
of 1 and conversely that neos 2,3,6,7, and 18 have received 2 scores each of 3.
While this is not conclusive of originality it does provide a hint as to which
of our neos are regarded as more original by our participants and thus lends,
if only a small amount, of certainty that our neos are in fact original.
One observation I found particularly
interesting were some of the scores given by Lindsay’s rater Ashley. This
wasn’t apparent to me until reviewing the data more carefully on this graph. It
seems that on several occasions she gave ratings directly opposite not only to
our predictions but also in contrast to other raters. I can see five separate
instances where some of our best neos, awarded 1’s by our team as well as two
of the raters, were shot down with 3s by Ashley. She couldn’t be playing
devil’s advocate, as she didn’t have access to any other scores. What could
have influenced her decision? She was given the same information as the other
participants yet still she rated wildly different. Why was it that she awarded
1’s to other neos we thought less original and 3’s to those we thought more
original? Perhaps the answer is no more hard to understand than a simple litmus
test. Some people see flower while others see an octopus. Just a simple
difference of perspective. We do know however that some of the reasoning that
influenced her decisions came from the recognition of the possibility that the
world of human creativity is much too vast for any one individual to claim
creatorship over a given expression. This can be reflected in her feedback:
“….more likely that they would show up in people’s blogs or MySpace pages.”
Our
second graph titled “Total Ratings versus Individual Ratings” is designed to
show us just how many total ratings of each score (1 through 3) were given and
who gave them, irrespective of the neos receiving the scores. This graph can be
seen below. The data shows us trends and patterns regarding a participant’s
tendency to score a certain way as well as give us a general idea of a how
original the participants thought our neos were as a whole. In addition we can
see how each participant generally scored in relation to our predictions. The graph allows us to make a few key
observations about our participants. The participant most consistent with our
overall prediction scores is my sister Karli, or in other words she awarded
total scores of 1, 2, and 3 more consistently with our predictions than the
other 2 participants. Also if you notice in the number 2 column Ashley is
absent, that is because she always scored in 3’s and 1’s. And we can see that
she usually reacted less favorably toward the neos than more favorably by a
difference of 4. Shona on the other hand, had a tendency to react more
favorably as we can see that the majority of her scores are either 1 or 2.
Data Discussion
There
is one constant that I have observed from conducting this survey, among all the
inconsistencies in the data. It is that the participants were aware that while
they themselves might never have experienced a particular expression or unusual
pairing of words, that isn’t to say that it necessarily is original. And while Googling authenticity can be a good
indicator of originality, and may be a resource for a wealth of information, it
does not encompass the entirety of human thought and expression. There are many, many outlets for media in
today’s information age. People can express new ideas through books,
television, cinema, poetry, radio, Internet, etc. Currently the Internet,
especially Google, is our most efficient way of sifting through the most
information in the least amount of time. However in order for Google to detect
it it must be posted on the Web in the first place. Therefore the effectiveness
of Google is constrained not just by the World Wide Web, but also to the
portion of the Web that is accessible to Google. In addition Google only
accounts for words on the Web, and words aren’t the only way to communicate
information on the Web anymore. In fact modern culture is increasingly turning
to other Internet mediums like YouTube to express ideas. So it makes one wonder
about just how effective is Google at verifying originality when its range is
limited to words on a webpage.
The
idea of a neologism is very interesting to me. Contemplation of a neo, any neo,
can yield so many questions. How do we define a neo? Neologism is defined as a
new word or meaning: a recently coined word or phrase, or a recently
extended meaning of an existing word or phrase. The word “recently” strikes me
as important because how can we ever be certain when a word was originated.
Does the word or expression have to be uttered in a public domain where many
others can hear? Can it be created casually in conversation and still be
attributed with originality?
Our
survey participants had varying perspectives pertaining to the originality of
each neo. However there was one understanding they all seemed to share. They
all realized the limitations of Googling as well as the limitations of their
own experiences in verifying authenticity of originality. I can recall my
sister saying “It almost sounds familiar…I cant remember….but just because I
cant remember who said, or who wrote it, or when, or where…..doesn’t necessarily
make it original….Maybe even I’ve never heard it…but that doesn’t make it
original.”
My
conclusion is that while Googling a neo with zero returns can add validity to
certainty of originality, the goal of 100% certainty can never be attained, as
that would require true omniscience. All we can do with exercises like this
survey is add certainty. Perhaps further certainty could be attained with a
survey completed by a wider range of participants. This survey was constrained
by limited number of participants and especially a similarity (ie age, gender)
among participants. To maximize validity of our neos we might have surveyed
people of all different ages, experiences, ethnic backgrounds, origins,
lifestyles, etc. But again even a more expansive survey would have only pushed
us slightly further towards an unattainable goal of 100% certainty.
So
in closing I feel positive about the results of our survey in adding certainty
to our neos, even though some of our participants’ ratings seemed to hinder
that goal. But I suppose that is the price of experimentation, in that results
from participation can both lend validity to a hypothesis and also diminish it.
In the end the results were not absolutely conclusive of what we set out to do,
to maximize certainty of neos which had survived the scrutiny of Google.
However, they did provide valuable insight into the nature of neologisms, and
perhaps more importantly, insight into the nature of certainty.
New Words Show a Language
in Transition
In the article New Words Show a Language in
Transition, Oliver Wendall Homes Jr. suggests that neos are formed as
things change over time. Just as issues
of daily life changes with time, including topics such as culture, politics,
and technology, the English language
must adapt so that we may communicate these new ideas. Oliver Wendell Homes said "The times
they are a-changing" faster now than ever, and English keeps frantically
churning out new words to keep up” (Leddy, 2007).
According
to Leddy (2007) Perhaps the starkest changes are technological. If someone a
decade ago had told me he'd "googled a hottie he'd met at a rave" I
may have told him to speak English, please. Today, I know that he's saying he
used the Internet to search for information (likely using the search engine
Google) about an attractive woman he'd met at an all-night party. Recent
technological words like google, blogger (someone who keeps a Web log devoted
to her online musings) and e-commerce (doing business over the Web) are now
ubiquitous (dare I say newbiquitous?).
The article points out that the language reflects our
changing tastes and evolving ideas. As
our reality changes we must find new words to describe the new reality. There is a strong undertone that neologisms
are often created to butter-up or soften the blow of insensitive or hard to
swallow truths. The example that stands
out to me most is the neo “ethnic cleansing.”
This may be the nicest way of saying “genocide”, “death crimes against
humanity” or “mass murder” of innocent human beings (Leddy, 2007). The term “ethnic cleansing” may fool the
receiver into perceiving the crimes against humanity as a positive thing by a
simple play on words.
Who comes up with
Neologisms?
This leads to a very important question: who comes up with Neos? According to Dr. James in The Introduction to the Master Neochart,
“Every speaker of a language constructs neologisms as a routine practice in
daily social life and in private thinking.”
This suggests that we create new words and phrases without noticing on a
regular basis. Maybe if speakers became
aware of this we would have a way to describe our reality perfectly. One thought that comes to mind on this topic
is the phrases ”that is not a word” or “I just can’t put it into words”. Apparently we don’t have to bind ourselves to
the vocabulary that the dictionary already contains, the sky is the limit. But when does a word we create graduate from
“neo” status to “just another word we call English?” You may not get your neo into Webster’s big
book, but when a public figure creates words people notice.
One of the most influential
psychologists in history was also among the first to be recognized for
neologisms. Freud’s terms “psychopathology”
of everyday life and the “super-ego” are two additions to the English language.
Stephen Colbert
Likewise, Stephen Colbert of the
popular political comedy show The Colbert Report” has coined many terms in an
attempt to present viewers with serious political issues in humorous
light. His sense of humor is as
sarcastic as it is creative, which has proven to be the perfect combination for
the creation of neologisms. The phrase “Conservative intellectuals are the hunks of dead flesh
sown into the walking corpse of the Republican Party,” can be viewed on his
site titled Colbert Nation at http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189586/october-27-2008/the-word---it-s-alive
.
Another example and perhaps a more
significant one is Stephen Colbert’s neologism “truthiness.” Wikipedia defines
Colbert’s word as follows: to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively
or "from the gut" without regard to evidence,
logic,
intellectual
examination,
or facts
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
. At the time of creation Colbert goes
on to explain why he developed the word: "We're not talking about truth,
we're talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to
exist" (Colbert, 2005). In addition
Stephen Colbert is responsible for creating the word Wikiality, which means
"bringing democracy to knowledge".
Bushisms
The Neo “Bushisms” was created for
our current President, George Bush. The
term “Bushisms” refers to President George Bush’s interesting use of the
English language over the past eight years. There are multiple websites that
are dedicated to documenting quotes by President Bush. One website http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html
, has compiled hundreds of quotes by Bush such as “Too many good docs are getting out of
business. Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their, their love with
women all across this country.” Other
infamous quotes found in this site include “Our country must come together to
unite,” and “Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations.
You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information,
please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information
who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information —
outside the administration.”
Although these quotes by Bush may be
Neologisms since it is unlikely that anyone has used these particularly
interesting and creative word combinations to form sentences in the past, they
probably won’t become a part of the mainstream English Language. On the other hand, the term “Bushism” has
become widely popular and is well known to the American people. Undoubtedly the term “Bushism” may move from
“Neo” status to just another word we recognize as English. Here is a hint, one way that a neologism may
evolve into a recognized word is the popularity of the word or phrase. If it sticks and people begin using the term,
a word is born.
Introduction to the
Master Neochart
As stated in The Introduction to the
Master Neochart,
“Everyone
can benefit from the practice of collecting their own neologistic productions
over time. It is a form of biographical
record keeping. It is also a form of
cultural history a charting of community cataloguing practices by which human
beings keep track of their perceptions, insights, experiences, thus life
itself.
No doubt a
‘Human Atlas of Neologisms’ may eventually be derived from world-wide
neologistic databases, that can show the mental unity of the human race, and
possibly, the directionality of its spiritual destiny” (James).
This could not have been worded
better since there is a clear connection between our culture and our
language. The language of an era can be
a window into the lives of individual members of a culture and the of the
culture as a whole. Although we may not
think about it on a regular basis, our language represents our values, beliefs,
and lifestyles. Keeping track of your
own neologisms is like writing a storybook about your life history.
Neo Graduation
One way that a neo becomes a word
has been revealed. When a neo becomes so
popular that people begin using it regularly, a word is born. Examples of this include the use of
technology related words such as “googled” or “IM”. These phrases were fairly recently born out
of necessity since new actions created a need for new words. When everyone recognizes these neos as
regularly used words, who can argue that they are not real? More formally there is a second way that neos
graduate to “word status,” when they are entered into the dictionary.
The Prevalence of Neo’s
Role in Society and Life
The Introduction
to the Master Neo Chart sheds light on the
prominent role neologisms assume in society and life. Neologisms play a crucial role in allowing
people to communicate and to interact more effectively with each other. They are an aspect of language that uniquely
communicates and reflects the individual and collective consciousness. Ultimately, documenting and recognizing
neologisms can provide valuable insight into our own selves and our
interpersonal relationships.
Neologisms enable
people to communicate more effectively with each other. Co-author Myles Baldridge stated, “Neos expand
vocabulary, which expand language, which expand the mind’s capacity to
represent the world.” Current words and
phrases may be unable to express a certain feeling, attitude, or belief;
neologisms can expand the limitation of language by compensating for this
inadequacy. Our feelings and abstract
thoughts can be made more tangible to us when we are capable of expressing them
more efficiently. Co-author Rita Gray
also agrees on the communicational advantages of neologisms: “Neos may allow us to communicate things that
we were not able to before. This can
affect our lives greatly…improved communication allows us to improve our
relationships and to know ourselves better.”
Furthermore, our world can be represented more successfully when
neologisms give people the opportunities to evaluate their surroundings,
culture, and state of being with new insight.
Neologisms are
also adaptive because they enable people to respond to their perpetually
changing society and environment. They
expand language to accommodate a society that is constantly changing, gaining
new beliefs, and forming new attitudes.
In this case, neologisms are adaptations to the values held by society
at a point in time, and this establishes a cultural identity. For example, the neologism “truthiness”
was coined by Stephen Colbert in 2005 to express the assumption that things are
true because they appear to be. Since
this term was ascribed to the questionable validity of organizations like Wikipedia,
his neo shows how our society reflects a substantial interest in the Internet,
the media, and technology. Also, when
neologisms adapt they may replace or succeed another neologisms popularly used
in another generation. For example, my
mother Audrey Taguma, reminisced on how “funky” used to refer to being cool,
but over time this word has secured a negative connotation (eg. What’s that
funky smell?). In addition, she said
that the word signifies her cultural identification to her past generation, but
now, she reveals that currently she uses the word in its negative
connotation. She admits that she needs
to conform in order to avoid confusion with the generation now.
Although people
are unmindful of the neologisms they produce daily, neos are prevalent to the
study of the human mind, because they are representative of humanity’s
history. Presently, every word or phrase
that is uttered or written has once been conceived as a neo, and represents the
amassed consciousness of the past. It is
good to be aware of a neo’s origins because potentially, the neologisms that
are currently generated could develop and influence the language of the future. However, this depends on whether or not the
neo is successful at integrating itself into daily conversation.
People may not
always be fully aware when neologisms are incorporated into casual conversation
and the norm. Once this happens,
accepting the neologism also reflects acceptance of the norm. This signifies an acknowledgement that a
community shares the same idea, belief, and consciousness. This bond also helps people to significantly
improve the way they relate to one another.
As people create neologisms they are all part of the developmental
process of expanding language, and this feeling of collective wholeness makes
an individual feel they are part of a larger idea. For example, Dr.
Leon James is elated when he discovers that
his neo in Google has diffused itself inside the minds of others: “There is a sense of delight I am experiencing, and
awe, when I google “semantic satiation” today (in 2008) and find over 2,000
results listed.” Dr. James refers to the creation of
neologisms as an affective product of love, a love for transmitting an
idea.
I mentioned
earlier how external stimuli such as culture can influence neologisms, and the
opposite is true as well. Neologisms can
alter our perspective on norms and co-author Rita Gray exhibits this: “The neo
“metal sharks in a parking frenzy” has given me comic relief when parking. This promotes relaxation in a normally
stressful situation.” In Gray’s case,
her comedic interpretation of the neo allows her to change into a positive
attitude regardless of the stress and frustration parking may evoke. Myles Baldridge states, “They (neos) allow
pairing of words and concepts, not usually represented together, thus allowing
new ideas to be integrated into consciousness.”
This consciousness, in turn, may affect and determine the way people
react or express those new words and ideas.
Even though
neologisms are the norm and everyone has the potential to produce a neo,
Baldridge considers neologisms also, as an expression of creativity. An example he gave was the ongoing pressure
for comedians to create satisfying performances, and how in this atmosphere,
neologisms are frequently constructed.
An example of this is the neo “truthiness,” coined in the comedic TV
show, The Colbert Report. Comedians are
also useful instruments in disseminating neologisms to the masses, as well as
the media, the Internet, Google, and other sources. These tools enable neologisms to be more
successfully accessed by the public, which conveys how rapidly neologisms can
be incorporated into society.
Gray
noticed that the role of neos in society was representative of a broader
notion: Culture’s influence on language
and vice versa. Across various cultures,
there are different stimulis, traditions, and environments. Multiple formulations of words vary across
cultures; one culture may have many words to describe an object, whereas
another culture may be able to convey the object with simply one word. For example, Eskimos
have numerous words to describe what the English language only classifies with
a few words such as blizzard, snowflake, and snow. Their intense interaction with snow is the
reason for this difference. More
importantly, recognizing the difference between cultures and their languages
provides people with the opportunity to gain new insight into their own
neologisms.
New Words For Thought
The Web results on neologisms reflect many sources that
indicate that neologisms are not considerably neglected. Rather, neologisms are mostly unnoticed by
the general public. Although neos
reflect the evolution of culture and adaptation of language, the average person
is not aware that our language develops as we do. The major problem occurs when the general
population is deceived by a word like “ethnic cleansing”. In addition those who are unaware of
neologisms may not be enjoying the creative freedom of expression and the
deeper understanding of themselves and others.
After completing this exercise on neologisms we have gained the ability
to recognize neos in society, we have expanded our ability to understand
ourselves and others, and we will now adopt the ability to utilize our
creativity to enhance our language as we change with the world.
References
Colbert, S. (2005, October 17). Truthiness. Retrieved on November 1, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
Wikipedia
gives examples of neos created by Stephan Colbert. The neos defined on this site show how the
presentation of a neo may affect the lifespan of the word or phrase.
Colbert, S. (2007, October 27). The word: it’s alive. Video posted to http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/189586/october-27-2008/the-word---it-s-alive-
Colbert’s
video clip shows his use neologisms on his political talk show. He creatively devises phrases that he feels
more accurately describe the reality of the situation. This is important because it shows that if
there are no words to describe a particular situation develop language
yourself. Creativity knows no limits.
James, L. Half a
century of science in psychology: Scientific Neologisms Coined by Leon James.
Retrieved from http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/neochartp1.htm
Arguably
the most valuable of all references, this electronic book is a resource rich in
knowledge of Neologisms. It explains how
they are created, why they are created, and why they are important.
Leddy, C.(2007). New words show a language in transition. Writer. 120(11). Retrieved November 1,
2008 from
This
article is further proof that language develops as people and culture
change. It mentions some of the famous
Neologisms and sheds light on the topic of language development and cultural
evolution.
Lewis, J.J. (2006). Bushism
Quotes. Retrieved from November 1, 2008 from http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html
The
Website titled Bushism Quotes is
dedicated to recording all of Neological terms coined by President George Bush
over the term of his presidency. Because
he is a public figure we are engaged by his creative use of the English
Language. This is important to our
research because it allows us to see how a neo becomes a common term.